By consent
of learned advocates appearing for respective parties the appeals were taken up
for final hearing.

The
short question involved in these three appeals is as to whether the
respondent-workmen who had obtained employment in Railway service run by appellant-Union
of India, on the basis of bogus and forged
casual labourer service cards could be continued in Railway service once such
fraud was detected by the Railway authorities. The Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench has taken the view that as the aforesaid misconduct
of the respondent- Railway employees does not fall within the forecorners of
Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter
referred to as `the Rules'), the orders of removal from service passed against
the respondents could not be sustained and they were entitled to be reinstated
in Railway service with all conse uential benefits. The aforesaid view of the
Tribunal is brought on the anvil of scrutiny in the present proceedings moved
by the appellant- Union of India and the concerned Railway authorities under
whom the respondent-workmen worked at the relevant time.

The
Tribunal in the impugned judgments has placed reliance on its earlier decision
in O.A. No.892 of 1993 decided on 22nd June 1994 for taking the view that such
misconduct would not attract Rule 3(1)(i) and (iii) of the Rules. It is not in
dispute between the parties that the concerned respondent-workmen had got
employment in Railway by producing bogus and forged casual labourer service
cards purported to have been issued by their earlier employers.

However,
according to the Tribunal such a misconduct would not attract Rule 3(1)(i) and
(iii) of the Rules as the concerned employee even though engaged as a casual
employee could not be said to be governed by the Rules at the time when he
obtained such employment and that he was not guilty of any misconduct committed
during the Railway service.

The
aforesaid view of the Tribunal can be better appreciated in the light of the
relevant provisions of the Rule itself. Rule 3(1) reads as under:

(ii) maintain
devotion to duty; and (iii do nothing which is subversion of law and order and
is unbecoming of a railway government Servant." Now it is no doubt true
that on the express language of the Rule the concerned Railway servant has to
maintain absolute integrity and has not to do any thing which is subversion of
law and order and which is unbecoming of a railway or a government servant.
That would certainly apply to a railway servant who is alleged to have misconducted
himself while in Railway service. However, learned senior counsel for
appellants vehemently submitted that the misconduct alleged in the present
case, of snatching railway employment in the basis of bogus certificates or
casual labourer cards, would indeed show that the concerned employee had
exhibited a conduct which was unbecoming of a railway servant.

It is
not necessary for us to express any opinion on the applicability of Rule 3(1)(i)
and (iii) on the facts of the present cases for the simple reason that in our
view the concerned railway employees, respondents herein have admittedly
snatched employment in Railway service, may be of a casual nature, by relying
upon forged or bogus casual labourer cards. The unauthenticity of the service
cards on the basis of which they got employment is clearly established on
record of the departmental enquiry held against the concerned employees. Consecuently,
it has to be held that respondents were guilty of misrepresentation and fraud
perpetrated on the appellant employer while getting employed in Railway service
and had Snatched such employment which would not have been made availeble to
them if they were not armed with such bogus and forged labourer cards.

Learned
counsel for the respondents submitted that for getting service in Railway as
casual labourers, it was strictly not necessary for the respondents to rely
upon such casual service cards. If that was so there was no occasion for them
to produce such bogus certificates service cards for getting employed in
Railway service. Therefore, it is too late in the day for the respondents to
submit that production of such bogus or forged service cards had not played its
role in getting employed in Railway service. It was clearly a case of fraud on
the appellant-employer. If once such fraud is detected, the appointment orders
themselves which were found to be tainted and vitiated by fraud and acts of
cheating on the part of employees, were liable to be recalled and were at least
voidable at the option of the employer concerned. This is precisely what has
happened in the present case. Once the fraud of the respondents in getting such
employment was detected the respondents were proceeded against in departmental
enquiries and were called upon to have their say and thereafter have been
removed from service. Such orders of removal would amount to recalling of
fraudulently obtained erroneous appointment orders which were avoided by the
employer- appellant after following the due procedure of law and complying with
the principles of natural justice. Therefore, even independently of Rule 3(1)(i)
and (iii) of the Rules, such fraudulently obtained appointment orders could be
legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer and could be
recalled by the employer and in such cases merely because the
respondent-employees have continued in service for number of years on the basic
of such fraudulently obtained employment orders cannot create any equity in
their favour or any estoppel against the employer.In this connection we may
usefully refer to a decision of this Court in District Collector &
Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram
& Anr. V. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655. In that case Sawant, J.
speaking for this Court held that when an advertisement mentions a particular
qualification and an appointment is made in disrgard of the same, it is not a
matter only between the appointing authority and the appointee concerned. The
aggrieved are all those who had similar or even better qualifications than the
appointee or appointees but who had not applied for the post because they did
not possess the qualifications mentioned in the advertisement. It amounts to a
fraud on public to appoint persons with inferior qualifications in such
circumstances unless it is clearly stated that the qualifications are relaxable.
No court should be a party to the perpetuation of the fraudulent practice. It
is of course true as noted by the Tribunal that the facts of the case in the
aforesaid decision were different from the facts of the present case. And it is
also true that in that case pending the service which was continued pursuant to
the order of the Tribunal the concerned candidate acquired the requisite
qualification and hence his appointment was not disturbed by this Court. But
that is neither here nor there. As laid down in the aforesaid decision if by
committing fraud any employment is obtained such a fraudulent practice cannot
be permitted to be countenanced by a court of law.

Consequently,
it must be held that the Tribunal had committed a patent error of law in
directing reinstatement of the respondent-workmen with all consequential
benefits.

The
removal orders could not have been faulted by the Tribunal as they were the
result of a sharp and fraudulent practice on the part of the respondents.
Learned counsel for respondents, However, submitted that these illiterate
respondents were employed as casual labourers years back in 1983 and
subsequently they have been given temporary status and, therefore, after
passage of such a long time they should not be thrown out of employment. It is
difficult to agree with this contention. By mere passage of time a fraudulent
practice would not get any sanctity. The appellant authorities having come to
know about the fraud of the respondents in obtaining employment as casual Labourers,,
started departmental proceeding years back in 1987 and these proceedings have
dragged on for number of years. Earlier removal orders of the respondents were
set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and proceedings
were remanded and after remand fresh removal orders were passed by the
appellant which have been set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam
Bench and which are the subject matter of the present proceedings. Therefore,
it cannot be said that the appellants are estopped from recalling such
fraudulently obtained employment orders of the respondents subject of course to
following due procedure of law and in due compliance with the principles of
natural justice, on which aspect there is no dispute between the parties. If
any lenient view is taken on the facts of the present case in favour of the
respondents then it would amount to putting premium on dishonesty and sharp
practice which on the facts of the present case in favour of the respondents
then it would amount to putting premium on dishonesty and sharp practice which
on the facts of the present cases cannot be permitted.

For
all these reasons, therefore, these appeals are allowed. The impugned orders of
the Tribunal are set aside and the original applications filed by the
respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Eranakulam Bench are
dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the cases there will be
no order as to costs all throughout.